Treat others with basic decency. No personal attacks, hate-speech, flaming, baiting, trolling, witch-hunting, or unsubstantiated accusations. Threats of violence will result in a ban. More Info.

Do not post users' personal information.

Users who violate this rule will be banned on sight. Witch-hunting and giving out private personal details of other people can result in unexpected and potentially serious consequences for the individual targeted. More Info.

Vote based on quality, not opinion.

Political discussion requires varied opinions. Well written and interesting content can be worthwhile, even if you disagree with it. Downvote only if you think a comment/post does not contribute to the thread it is posted in or if it is off-topic in /r/politics. More Info.

Do not manipulate comments and posts via group voting.

Manipulating comments and posts via group voting is against reddit TOS. More Info.

Use "no participation" links when linking to other subreddits.

Please use np.reddit.com links if you wish to link threads found on /r/politics to an outside subreddit. More Info.

Your headline must be comprised only of the copied and pasted headline of the article, a continuous quote taken from the article, or both the headline and a continuous quote taken from the article. If using a quote, it should reflect the article as a whole. More Info.

Submissions must be an original source.

An article must contain significant analysis and original content--not just a few links of text among chunks of copy and pasted material. Content is considered rehosted when a publication takes the majority of their content from another website and reposts it in order to get the traffic and collect ad revenue. More Info.

Spam is bad!

If 33% or more of your submissions are from a single website, you will be banned as a spammer. More Info.

The ALL CAPS and 'Breaking' rule is applied even when the actual title of the article is in all caps or contains the word 'Breaking'. This rule may be applied to other single word declarative and/or sensational expressions, such as 'EXCLUSIVE:' or 'HOT:'. More Info.

Self-Posts are allowed on Saturdays.

Self posts must adhere to our on topic statement.. Meta posts (posts about /r/Politics and not the topic of politics) are not allowed. Please message the mods with your feedback about the subreddit. More Info.

He wasn't the troll, the chairperson who: Refused to let people voice their opinions on the point of order before issuing his ruling; and then ignored the rules of the Congress by not hearing objections to the ruling; andthenignored the rules of Congress by saying that all of the objections would have to be heard in debate (thus placing objectors in the catch-22 of either using their time to object to the ruling on the point of order, or using it to talk about the substance of the bill), that fucker is a troll.

From what I gather, there was a new rule placed from the Republicans when they took the majority that all new legislation must place in the bill which part of the constitution they are using to justify the bill. This new piece which will take away federal funding for abortions does not have that stipulation but rather just stated ambiguously that this is in response to some unconstitutional law (Not really pointing at anything), Anthony "Big Brass" Weiner pointed this out and started the discussion.

The Bill of Rights is a set of limits. The original Constitution delineates both powers (as of legislation) and limits (as, for example, the proscription on blood corruption.)

So one could, for example, specify that a tax bill is derived from Congress' authority to legislate and to levy taxes. The rule requires new legislation to specify those parts of the Constitution granting Congress the authority to legislate in that manner. It's more symbolic than anything else.

In this case, the Republicans failed to actually cite any Constitutional authority for the bill, and when called on it, Representative Barton said it was unnecessary because of Congress' authority to legislate. This, of course, completely defeats the purpose of the Republicans' own new rule. Weiner had them dead to rights.

Our constitution is a specifically delimited grant of power from the people to the government. It's amazing how many people (Americans included) don't get this fundamental difference between the US constitution and pretty much every other constitution out there.

Basically the constitution lays out what powers each branch has, and what each branches duties are, so yes kind of like what each branch can and can't do. The intention of the new rule is to show that the bill being introduced is in fact constitutional, I actually think its a good idea. The Republicans passed it in kind of a passive-aggressive way to say the Democrat controlled House was working outside of the constitution, making this whole interaction kind of ironic.

You are probably thinking about the Bill of Rights, which are the first ten amendments that were ratified in the first few sessions of Congress and specifically enumerated certain rights the national government could not break. It was suggested to persuade anti-Federalists, who were afraid of any powerful central government, to support the US Constitution. These are from where most recent high-profile issues (abortion, secular government, campaign fund-raising) stem and probably the reason why you think the US Consitution has negative rights.

The point of the order/bill is, at it's very core, exactly what every order/bill is. It is in some form, cleverly disguised, a way for the bill writer to pay back those that funded his or her rise to power. You may think it's about a woman's right for proper medical care, but it really about not requiring insurance companies to cover costs of certain medical procedures. As we are all painfully aware, the insurance companies are truly suffering financially in this day and age. It's just our elected officials looking out for the little guy, ya know?

Bingo, not that I know of a way to make people not act upon their beliefs especially when in positions of power (and trying to pander to a large percentage of voters)...unless they are really intelligent (and they clearly aren't) and are able to draw a impenetrable line between their beliefs and their work (again, which they constantly clearly can't do) then all their fairy tale beliefs are going to find their way into legislation, this is partly why I think the separation of church and state was so important to the founders, but I really can't imagine that they could foresee this level of stupidnes infiltrating into high positions of power in this country because if they could have they would have emphasized it more (not that their weren't always willfully ignorant stupid people around but it seems these days stupid is a virtue).

The point of the bill is to chip away at a woman's right to have an abortion. It would not be a landmark bill, but part of the gradual erosion which has been going on for years. This one in particular was directed at use of insurance money for getting an abortion.

It was an anti-abortion bill. The casus belli was that the supporters of the bill (the chariman being on of them) forget to point to a specific section of the constitution which gives them the right to introduce that specific piece of legislation. Then Mr New York pointed this out, then the 52 minute shitstorm erupted that's commonly known as your every-day high-politics.

The chair was just a cheating son of a bitch (no offense to bitches intended). Wiener was just being a responsible person in following the house rule the GOP made. Rule that only apply to democrats from this example.

Perhaps the real trolls here are the GOP, who want to have any legislation they introduce be exempt from constitutional muster by claiming that they "just followed the constitution" for their bullshit.

I’ve been further even more decided to use even go need to do look more as anyone can. Can you really be far even as decided half as much to use go wish for that?

My guess is that when one really been far even as decided once to use even go want, it is then that he has really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like. It’s just common sense.

Summary: Republicans passed a law which says every new bill should have a statement saying where in the constitution the powers are given to justify the given bill. IE: if they pass a bill saying everybody has to chop off their index finger, they have to say where in the constitution the government has been given the power to remove people's fingers.

In the video, Democratic Congressman Anthony Wiener points out that a Republican sponsored bill (dealing with how abortions are handled in Obamacare) doesn't say where in the constitution they are granted this power. The bill in question just says it repeals an unconstitutional law.

He's right, and the correct thing to do would be to say "oops, yeah, we'll go fix that", but the remaining 40 minutes of the video is everybody else in congress acting like fucking idiots. It's hard to tell if they're truly stupid, or they're just not listening to him.

Watching this video really drives home how fluid the "rules" are in government. It's basically, whoever has the majority makes the rules. When a simple point of order is raised that the rules are obviously not being followed, it turns into a huge exercise in douchebaggery.

Other than being bull-headed and saying, "We refuse to yield to the other party." I suspect the Republican party would have a difficult time coming up with good Constitutional language (though, it has been interpreted so broadly that I'm sure they could come up with something).

It's because "trolling" is used to describe almost anything that confuses, humiliates, tricks, or even just pokes fun at, now. Sort of like how the word "hipster" is now used to describe anything remotely alternative.

Im glad you mentioned this, but I think trolling has to include some intention of frustrating or angering, and it has to rely on some amount of deceit. People use the word trolling for anything now-a-days. It used to mean something.

tldw: GOP enacts a house rule to clearly indicate which part of the constitution a bill applies. GOP submits an anti-abortion bill, but omits said requirement. Weiner calls them on their shit. GOP asshattery ensues.

I just wanted to say thanks for posting this. I expected to only watch a few minutes, but ended up in entranced and watched the entire video. It really opened up my eyes up to the types of things the GOP tries to get away with. I can't believe there was such a blatant disregard for the rules, and the order of the subcommittee.

Frankly, though, he's right - they can simply state "we have the the right to introduce legislation" which is exactly correct and to the point (and self-evident as well).

The whole "state the section in the Constitution that allows a bill to be introduced" is mindless, stupid theater meant to appease the illiterate Tea Bagger mob who don't understand, and are apparently incapable of understanding, how our government works.

On another point, Joe Pitts, the chairman of the committee, is an idiot.

Reddit's response to this whole thing is indicative of the depth of their investigatory skills. Watching the full hour reveals not a victory for Weiner, but a defeat for our entire country. Luckily the house is all talk.

No, it doesn't. But you know the only reason they passed this is because they wanted to beat Dems over the head with it later. And lo and behold, on day one, they themselves break it and nullify the rule.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the crux of the issue is that the GOP instituted this rule that says a new bill has to have some information attached or included that states which part of the constitution the bill addresses or to which part it applies.

Where is this statement? If it was submitted with the bill, why is it no longer with the bill? Why omit it?

The GOP instituted this rule so that new legislation is clearly marked and above-board and everyone knows the link between the bill and the constitution. Simply saying "I believe this is constitutional" isn't enough.

The contents of the legislation is not the issue at all. The issue is that the bill is malformed according to the rules of Congress.

If you think it's a bit long for a YouTube video with politicians in it, just start watching. It's worth your time no matter what, but you'll probably just finish it without realizing it's 50 minutes later.

Okay, but after all that arguing and pointing out that they didn't follow the rule, and that the bill wasn't actually properly introduced etc.. the chair basically just said fuck it and read the bill anyway.

It was like "yeah we broke the rule, this isn't allowed in the constitution, but oh well." The whole thing was depressing to watch since all of the people trying to get the rule followed essentially had no power whatsoever. Yeah they can argue and debate, but at the end of it all, the chair just says fuck you and does what he wants.

That's why I did not get this either. Sure, Weiner was completely correct, and he used their tool against them. However, the only setback was an hour of their time as the Chair continued on, unperturbed.

Are you sure? What if when the next bill introduced by a Democrat with a similar statement "this bill is constitutional because it's constitutional", the chairman decides that the rule does in fact call for a specific citation from the constitution?

Specifically, how can the minority ensure the rules are being followed consistently when the majority is willing to interpret the rules to their benefit? What punishment is there for breaking the rules?

Don't just comment on this here, write your representative. My representative is Jan Schakowsky, and I sent her the following email:

I just viewed the video of Congressmen Weiner and yourself questioning whether the committee was following the newly adopted rule that you must site the particular line in the Constitution that gives the House the right to enact a law.

I just wanted to thank you for your efforts in this matter, as well as for pointing out that the Chairman was allowing the congressmen and not the congresswomen to speak on an issue that affects the constitutional rights of women.

If the rule is to site the line in the constitution, it is clear that they did not do so, and it is obvious to me that they were intentionally obfuscating the issue raised by Congressmen Weiner and yourself.

That's what I didn't understand - Weiner's point wasn't to go back to the whole abortion debate, just to point out that Roe v. Wade is still the law of the land, justified under the Fourteenth Amendment, and that Republicans hadn't followed their own rule requiring them to prove their own bill's constitutionality.

It seems that the majority are absolutely unable to analyze their own behavior in light of this fact. They kept coming back to the bill being what they believed to be correct, and kept ignoring Weiner's main point that they hadn't followed their own protocol and in fact had proposed an unconstitutional bill. Sure, we can have the debate about the "constitutional rights of the unborn," but until then Roe v. Wade is still law, justified by the Fourteenth Amendment, and it's beyond stupid to introduce law competing with it. They know they're never going to overturn Roe v. Wade so they're trying to sidestep it entirely.

Regardless of his Roe v. Wade, his point was that the House Rule requires that you provide the constitutional justification for the bill when it is submitted, and that this bill did not do that.

The House Rules committee came back and said that as long as you wrote something, anything, even if it's "the constitutional justification of this bill is ajfklejlksjflkjels;kfs" , then the bill should be heard and that issue brought up in the discussion of the bill before being voted on.

Which is, of course, absolutely ridiculous. And the committee went ahead and ignored this. This is how the next two years are going to go.

The one dudes justification for it was "Well we are congress, right? And it says right here in the constitution that congress can make laws, right?" with that stupid shit eating grin on his face. That really pissed me off. If that is your justification then WTF was the point of the rule then. So if anyone writes up a bill and can't think of a reason it relates to the constitution they could use that as the reason and, because of this, it would be perfectly justifiable.

That was Joe Barton of Texas. He oversees the Energy and Commerce Committee, and you can imagine what his views on climate change are. He is a creationist. He does want to strengthen social security, though, so at least he's not batshit insane.

The constitutional authority for congress to legislate is why the rule was ridiculous to propose in the first place. However, shouldn't the rules be obeyed, even if they are ridiculous. That's how the law works, after all.

Wind is God’s way of balancing heat. Wind is the way you shift heat from areas where it’s hotter to areas where it’s cooler. That’s what wind is. Wouldn’t it be ironic if in the interest of global warming we mandated massive switches to energy, which is a finite resource, which slows the winds down, which causes the temperature to go up? Now, I’m not saying that’s going to happen, Mr. Chairman, but that is definitely something on the massive scale. I mean, it does make some sense. You stop something, you can’t transfer that heat, and the heat goes up. It’s just something to think about.

I think the pointlessness of the rule is what this video amply demonstrates. There isn't and definitely shouldn't be any actual mechanism for congress to determine if the statement of constitutional basis is in any way sufficient. That's what the courts are for. As pathetic as the Republicans appear in the video, I think they are right that the only way that the statement of justification can affect anything is if members choose to vote against the bill based on their own opinion of whether the statement was adequate. Of course, the rule is still pointless, since members already factor their interpretation of the constitution into their vote.

The rule is just a stylistic "Fuck you" to the courts, implying that the courts can't be trusted to reign congress in. It is ironically Mr. Barton that demonstrates so vividly that congress can't check its own power.

"Constitutional justification" in this context only means "why we support the bill." Why push forward such a rule and then follow it only to the barest extent, unless it was intended to be an attack on the political opposition and prop up your own side without any work or principle?

Why are you doing this?! You evil texan fat fuck. Why?! Even if you believe this peice of shit bill is moral, why are you being so god damn disengenuous about the rules -your- fucking party put in place. Oh! You're fucking smiling?! You're smiling! Gjdshfjshjfhfhsk

The point is that the rule is a joke in the first place. It serves no real purpose. Essentially, it's nothing but a passive aggressive implication on the part of the Republicans that the Democrats don't take the Constitution seriously enough. What's funny here is the fact that the Republicans themselves are unwilling to make even the slightest attempt to pretend otherwise.

This is scary. What happens if republicans start to ignore congressional procedures? If Dems try to argue with facts and actual procedures Fox News will say that Dems are trying to stifle the republicans voicing the will of the people or someother bs. It feels like whatever republicans want Fox News will get it done.

is this possible, can republicans get away with breaking the rules of congress? Is this only happening in the committee? Is it anything to worry about?

Not all of us in Texas are Republican, in fact Texas used to be largely Democratic until the mid 80's. The tides will turn soon enough, the Baby Boomers that vote for asshats like Barton are dying off...

well the Republicans wanted to act high and mighty and claim that Democrats just want to legislate and don't give a shit about whether or not our Constitution gives the Congress any actual authority to pass the laws that they want to implement, so the Republicans created a rule that whenever legislation wants to get introduced to be voted on it needs to include in the mission statement where in the Constitution the legislation derives its authority.

The Republicans are very much against the health care reform and are against women's reproductive rights and privacy rights, so they are trying to enact a piece of legislation that will bar insurance companies from funding abortions. However, this infringes on Constitutional rights to privacy and from a decision in our Supreme Court. Either through recklessness or acknowledgement that what they are trying to pass is unconstitutional, they broke their own rule they introduced and did not state where they are deriving the authority to pass the legislation they want to introduce.

the constitution can only be violated by democrats, see? the patriot act is righteous only when extended by republicans, and judges are activists only when deciding against sacred conservative causes (when justices overruled congress on health care recently they weren't "legislating from the bench" because, well, in such an instance the concept alone's absurd). this is not that difficult people. do try and keep up.

They did read the actual rules at one point and I think it actually said it doesn't have to have a literal sentence from the constitution or whatever. It was bs though. If in the future, and I'm sure it will come up, a Dem puts forth a bill and they try to say there is no constitutional citation I hope the Dems make them eat their trickery.

The rule did say that it had to reference the specific power in the Constitution granting the authority to pass the law.

The statement given did no such thing.

All the Republicans would have had to do to shortcut the entire hour's discussion was to go through their little pamphlet copies of the Constitution, write down the appropriate citation, and resubmit the statement.